Stonewalled: Simon Fanshawe in the Daily Mail

It saddens me to remember my respect and admiration for Stonewall back in the day. All melted away now. Now it's inimical to my views and I distrust its brand.

It was the cotton ceiling that started my journey, many years ago now.

I thought this was an excellent piece. A basic 101 of why there is a conflict. No jargon.

I have watched all this with mounting anger and sorrow but also fear, because this is not a minor chapter in the culture wars, but something that affects every single person living in the UK today

Well said! I too am absolutely fed up of people trying to shunt this whole issue into a corner labelled 'unimportant'. Dismissing it as just a 'culture war'. It is far more profound and concerning than that.

Cashman is such a disappointment, is it that he still just doesn't understand or is it that he just doesn't care?

Interesting question. I don’t imagine anyone actually knows.

It’s very hard to believe that there are people who are fully aware of the arguments (which he must be, if he has listened at all - he’s certainly been told) who still think it’s appropriate to rush into self-ID and still genuinely considered there is no issue whatsoever.

There is, of course, the likelihood that he has been heavily lobbied, like many other politicians. And it may be that, as Lord Paddick appears to be, he is so closely bound up with a mixed group of gay men and male trans rights activists, that he can’t bear the thought of losing that link, even if somewhere deep inside, he knows that women have a genuine point.

A number of these men appear to have very ambivalent feelings towards women. It may be simply that to side with women over men feels like too much of a betrayal.

Either way, I don’t think he’s going to change his mind openly at any point. He’s dug himself in so deep, I don’t think there’s a way back.

This attitude is exactly why Stonewall is in the mess it's in.

The constant dismissal of information, opinion or data other than that which wholeheartedly supports the narrative they want to impose is textbook.

This is not an article by the Mail. It's an extract from a book by one of Stonewall's founding members.

Attacking his point of view on the basis of where the extract is published is a weak argument indeed - but it's an easy one isn't it?

One that can express contempt/derision without engaging whatsoever in discussion/debate on the points he's raised and opinions he holds.

Truth is the "mud" activists/allies like to throw at women (to malign, silence and vitally make others fearful of engaging) just doesn't stick to gay men who were founders of the very organisation they are criticising does it?

Pink News publishing story critical of Simon Fanshawe's interpretation of freedom being contrary to the dictionary definition is funny. Or it would be if it was used with any sense of irony:

Well indeed, especially when the dictionary definition of Woman, sends TRAs and the police and into a frenzy. If Stonewall had had their way, Women and Girls wouldn’t ever be used in the very situations when it’s most important.

So does anyone know how many of Stonewall's founders still actually think it's doing a good job?

Your question intrigued me, so I dug a bit.

Who knows what they're thinking, but in terms of clear public statements:

Good job: Michael Cashman, Lisa Power
Bad job: Matthew Parris, Simon Fanshawe

The rest seem to be keeping their thoughts to themselves, at least according to a couple of minutes searching on each. (There were ten other founders, one of whom has died).

www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/06/01/stonewall-founder-simon-fanshawe-freedom-free-to-be-trans-rights/

Pink News publishing story critical of Simon Fanshawe's interpretation of freedom being contrary to the dictionary definition is funny. Or it would be if it was used with any sense of irony:

"Stonewall founder Simon Fanshawe has said it’s “ludicrous” that freedom for trans people would mean, well, the dictionary definition of freedom."

I think the statement about Muslim parents protesting about their children being taught that some people are gay is inflamatory.

As I recall, unless I have confused it with another demonstration, the protest was against the introduction of an information pack that included trans rhetoric. Most parents were complaining about their children being taught they could change sex.
The media, including the Mail, misrepresented the protest so I don’t think Simon can be blamed for that.

I think Simon’s comment is otherwise very welcome.

That's a fabulous article really clear about the issue of single sex spaces.

So, ConcernedMum, please tell us where Simon has got it wrong in your eyes. And did you read Matthew Parris's article last weekend . He was another of the original fourteen founders of Stonewall. Did he get it wrong too?

Or would you only read an investigative journalist report on it? I take it too that you would similarly discredit any trans person's 'opinion' piece as well, even if they were one of the original founders of Stonewall and only recently left the organisation.

Are we to assume you would discredit ANY person's opinion piece as irrelevant despite working in the organisation for decades?

Given they have literally ZERO in terms of argument ("trans women are women, full stop, anyone who wishes to delve into the issues further is a bigot who deserves nothing but abuse" is not an argument) I cannot believe that they would have got further using arguments.

So does anyone know how many of Stonewall's founders still actually think it's doing a good job?

As a bi woman I have quite a few LGBT friends and I don't think I know anyone who supports Stonewall. In fact it was one of my trans friends who alerted me to how rubbish Stonewall has become.

It's a comment piece by Simon Fanshawe

answering a rather predictable comment about 'journalism' from one of our usual suspects yawn.

It's actually an extract from a book written by Simon called 'The Power of Difference' and published by Kogan.

Good to see such a calm, intelligent and rational article on the topic. I notice the comments are overwhelmingly supportive.

Excellent article. It's desperately sad to say this given how much good it did in the past, but Stonewall needs to disband. I hope it will lose its diversity champions revenue. That will make it over £3 million down. Maybe that will make it focus but I suspect not. Either way #nodebate is a terrible slogan and a worse policy. Keep shining that light

Great to see it put out there so clearly.

I feel really sorry for the people who worked so hard to get equal rights for our gay and bi community. It must be devastating to watch what they built be dismantled so quickly.

Fantastic article. He sets everything out so clearly so that even those who don’t really “get” the implications of Self ID, will understand.

Whoever thought the “no debate” policy would work, are bullying idiots.

Simon sets out the issues so clearly. Cashman is such a disappointment, is it that he still just doesn't understand or is it that he just doesn't care?

Sadly, Stonewall has entirely lost its capacity to listen or discuss

No debate as a tactic has been disastrous for stonewall and a good example of how not to try to influence public opinion or introduce change.

without a lot of journalism

It's a comment piece by Simon Fanshawe.

Ideally the Mail wouldn't have applied any "journalism" to it.

What sort of journalism did you have in mind - removing offensive words like "male", as per that USA Today farce?

Similar message in another article by Kathleen Stock today:

"People have taken it on board uncritically, because Stonewall has a stellar history of standing up for gay people. I also think a lot of people just don’t understand what this gender-identity stuff is about. They think it’s something to do with being gay and it’s something to do with sticking up for vulnerable people – so it’s commendable. They trust what Stonewall says."

"https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/05/31/biological-sex-is-real-not-psychological/